On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Gregory Maxwell <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I've never heard of a major software company hauling >> someone to court over a non-commercial/educational use license, and >> while it's probably happened I doubt it's a frequent occurrence. >> > > Probably doesn't fit your "major software company" definition, but: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg > > In addition to a case like that (which involved redistribution), I'm sure > lots of large companies have gotten fined for noncommercial-only software > found during a software license compliance audit. > > Which doesn't really answer the question, but: > > *If you're editing Wikipedia from work for non-work reasons, you're probably > breaking company policy as well as tax laws anyway. > *If you're editing Wikipedia from home, the issue is highly unlikely to > reach a court anyway.
Yes, But What I see is this, in my paranoid mind: Company M prohibits X. Company M gives students Z software Y to do something prohibited. Student Z contributes software using software Y to project P. Company M wants to now charge royalties for project P for violations, because it knows that the work was infringing on some rights. Basically I am worred about these student versions of windows "infecting" open source projects with illegal contributions. Just a crazy idea that has been following me. mike _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
